HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-06-2015 ARC Agenda PacketCity of San Luis Obispo, Agenda, Architectural Review Commission
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
AGENDA
Council Hearing Room
City Hall -990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
July 6, 2015Monday5:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL:Commrs. Patricia Andreen, Ken Curtis, Amy Nemcik, Allen Root,
Angela Soll, Vice-Chair Suzan Ehdaie, and Chairperson Greg Wynn
ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA: Commissioners or staff may modify the order of items.
MINUTES: Minutes of June 15, 2015. Approve or amend.
PUBLIC COMMENT: At this time, people may address the Commission about items
not on the agenda. Persons wishing to speak should come forward and state their
name and city of residence. Comments are limited to five minutes per person. Items
raised at this time are generally referred to the staff and, if action by the Commission is
necessary, may be scheduled for a future meeting.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
NOTE: Any court challenge to the action taken on public hearing items on this agenda
may be limited to considering only those issues raised at the public hearing, or in written
correspondence delivered to the City of San Luis Obispo at, or prior to, the public
hearing. If you wish to speak, please give your name and address for the record.
Any decision of the Architectural Review Commission is final unless appealed to the City
Council within 10 days of the action. Any person aggrieved by a decision of the
Commission may file an appeal with the City Clerk. Appeal forms are available in the
Community Development Department, City Clerk’s office, or on the City’s website
(www.slocity.org). The fee for filing an appeal is $273 and must accompany the appeal
documentation.
1.1135Santa Rosa Street.ARCH-0846-2015;Continuedreview of the remodeling
and addition toan existing commercial building, including the addition of two
dwellings on the third floor. The project is categorically exempt from CEQA; C-D
zone; 33 Tons, LLC, applicant. (Walter Oetzell)
COMMENT & DISCUSSION
2.Staff
a.Agenda Forecast
3.Commission
ADJOURNMENT
Presenting Planner: Walter Oetzell
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: Remodel of a commercial building and addition of a third floor with two new
dwellings
ADDRESS: 1135 Santa Rosa BY:Walter Oetzell, Assistant Planner
Phone: 781-7593
E-mail: woetzell@slocity.org
FILE #: ARCH-0846-2014 FROM: Phil Dunsmore, Senior Planner
RECOMMENDATION: Continue the item to a date uncertain with specific direction to modify
the project design.
SITE DATA
Applicant 33 Tons, LLC
Representative Bryan Ridley, Architect
Submittal Date January 26, 2015
Complete Date March 18, 2015
General Plan General Retail
Zoning Downtown-Commercial (C-D)
Environmental
Status
Categorically Exempt
(CEQA Guidelines §15301:
Minor alteration of existing
structures)
SUMMARY
The Commission reviewed this project on May 18th and continued consideration of the
application to a future date, providing recommendations to the applicant on modifications to the
project design. At this time, the applicant has modified the project design in response to
comments, however additional modifications may be needed prior to project approval. This
report focuses on the ARC comments and the project design changes.
1.0 COMMISSION’S PURVIEW
The Commission’s role is to review the proposed project and evaluate the suitability and
appropriateness of its design, using standards and policies of the City’s Zoning Regulations and
Community Design Guidelines, to achieve attractive, environmentally sensitive development.
Meeting Date:July 6, 2015
Item Number:1
ZR
ARC1 - 1
PJD
ARCH-0846-2015 (1135 Santa Rosa)
Page 2
2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
2.1 Site Information
The site is located at the northwest corner of Marsh and Santa Rosa Streets at the edge of the
downtown area, in the Downtown-Commercial (C-D) Zone. A pocket park (Cheng Park) is
across Marsh Street and office and commercial buildings are found in the immediate vicinity.
Table 1: Site Information
Access Santa Rosa Street via Santa Rosa Alley (entry, exit)
Site Dimensions
(approx.)
Area: 12,570 square feet; Width: 90 feet; Depth: 125 feet
Street Frontage: 90 feet (Marsh); 125 feet (Santa Rosa)
Topography Slope: Flat
Natural Features: Trees on and adjacent to site; near San Luis Obispo Creek
(± 50 ft SW)
Present Use &
Development
Banks and financial services
Commercial structure; 2 stories; 5,202 sq. ft. floor area
(previously Heritage Oaks Bank)
Surrounding Use /
Zoning
East: Office (SLOCOG, 1114 Marsh); Retail-Commercial (C-R) Zone
West: Parking (for 1065 Higuera); Downtown-Commercial (C-D) Zone
South: Cheng Park; Downtown-Commercial (C-D) Zone
North: Commercial (1085 Higuera); Downtown-Commercial (C-D) Zone
2.2Project Description
The project involves the remodeling of atwo-story commercial building, originally constructed
in 1982 as a bank and most recently used as a branch of the Heritage Oaks Bank. A third floor
with two new dwellings will be added to the building. The sloping roof line will be replaced with
horizontal roof lines, and the triangular building form will become amore rectangular,
contemporary design. The remodeled building will occupy the same footprint and maintain the
ARC1 - 2
ARCH-0846-2015 (1135 Santa Rosa)
Page 3
foundation, ground floor, and building elements such as the existing bank vault.
3.0EVALUATION
At the May 18th ARC hearing, commissioners discussed the project’s consistency with the
Community Design Guidelines as applicable to the downtown area. In summary, the commission
felt that the proposed design was inconsistent with fundamental policy objectives of the C-D
zone, including a lack of human scale, inconsistency with the traditional design elements in the
C-D zone, and other features. The project design has been modified, in light of the
recommendations provided by the ARC, and these modifications are identified and discussed in
the following evaluation. However, some of the ARC’s direction is challenging to implement
given the existing building location, and the interior design elements such as the bank vault.
3.1Project Changes
The following discussion illustrates the most significant project changes.
Windows, bulkhead, and awnings
The contemporary window forms of the original design have been replaced by divided windows
comprised of individual panes. At the ground floor level along Marsh Street, the height of the
windows has been increased, and the sill level of the windows lowered. A cut-stone bulkhead
feature has been added to the base of the Marsh Street frontage, and awnings have been added
above the ground floor windows. These awnings are similar to those above the Santa Rosa
building entry, with wood on the underside of the awnings.
Figure 1: Original (left) and revised (right) window styles
Figure 2: Original Marsh frontage (left) and modified frontage (right)
ARC1 - 3
ARCH-0846-2015 (1135 Santa Rosa)
Page 4
Site wallsand furniture
The site wall adjacent to the parking lot has been lowered in height, to as low as about 3 ½ feet,
and most of the wall is now composed of a wood material, except the portion screening a
transformer, near the Santa Rosa entry, which remains cut stone. Planters and benches have been
added as site furniture amenities along the path of the building entry.
Lighting and signs
Pedestrian-level signage has been added at the Santa Rosa entry and building-mounted signage is
contemplated at the northeast building corner. Decorative lighting fixtures are installed along the
ground floor of the building, primarily along the Marsh Street frontage.
Landscaping
The planting palette is more varied. Particular attention has been given to the Marsh Street
frontage, where plants are now more varied in height and color, and rock and pebble “pathways”
tie window openings to the sidewalk.
Figure 3: Original site wall (left) and lowered site wall (right)
Figure 4: Enhanced project signage
ARC1 - 4
ARCH-0846-2015 (1135 Santa Rosa)
Page 5
3.2Response to recommendations
The following discussion details how the applicant has responded to each of the ARC’s
directional items from the May 18th hearing.
Enhance the pedestrian scale
The applicant aims to enhance the pedestrian scale1 with the project changes identified above.
New signage, planters, and benches at the Santa Rosa entry, along with lowering of the screening
wall, make the primary entry more visible to the pedestrian and provide amenities for pedestrian
comfort. Taller windows, lower sills, awnings, decorative light fixtures, and a cut-tile bulkhead
feature along the Marsh Street frontage provide a visually interesting pedestrian-oriented façade
that incorporates human-scale materials.2 The revised landscape palette uses a creative
combination of plant types, sizes, and colors, along with a dozen new oak trees to create the
impression of an arboretum or, as described by the architect, a “living awning,” enlivening the
pedestrian experience around the building.
Incorporate entries and openings that face the street and corner
The existing building is oriented with its main entry on the north side, adjacent to the parking lot.
Due to site and building constraints, the main entry is proposed to remain at this location. The
entry is recessed, and has been made more visible from the sidewalk by lowering the parking lot
screening wall. The entry has been highlighted with lighting and signage, and provided with a
protective awning and benches as pedestrian amenities. A new, larger, window has been added to
adjacent to the entry walkway, addressing the Santa Rosa sidewalk, to more strongly orient the
entry toward the pedestrian.
Creating an entry at the southeast building corner is not possible because a large, immovable
bank vault occupies that corner of the building. Similarly, incorporation of an entry into the
Marsh Street façade may be impractical because, though a small secondary entry currently exists,
installation of ramp structures to provide access for disabled persons would be required, as the
finished floor level of the first floor is not level with the sidewalk grade and the existing entry
1 Community Design Guidelines § 1.4(B) discusses the objective of creating and maintaining pedestrian scale
2 CDG § 4.2(C) – Façade design.
ARC1 - 5
ARCH-0846-2015 (1135 Santa Rosa)
Page 6
does not comply with current standards for access. The applicant has noted that constructing
ramps here may not be feasible, given the limited setback area between the sidewalk and the
building, or desirable, as it would significantly reduce the landscaped area along this frontage.
Though the design does not incorporate any additional street or corner entries, staff believes that
a pleasant and inviting transition to the existing and well-established main building entry is
provided from the Santa Rosa sidewalk, and that the constraints imposed by the bank vault and
the grade change between the sidewalk and the first floor level make additional entries
infeasible. Window area at the southeast corner, adjacent to the vault, has been maximized. The
lack of an entry from Marsh Street is ameliorated by a pedestrian experience that has been
enhanced by new larger windows, rock and pebble approaches in front of these windows,
decorative awnings and lighting fixtures, a cut-tile bulkhead, and creative combinations of
plantings. Given the constraints, the design is consistent with the intent of guidelines for
downtown buildings that encourage varied and interesting wall surfaces,3 and entrances as
important architectural details4 encouraging pedestrian traffic.
Implement Community Design Guidelines Downtown Design Standards
Community Design Guidelines are provided to preserve and enhance the attractiveness of the
downtown area through the design of buildings and their setting. T he Downtown area’s
cohesiveness in urban design is supported by the presence of several structures that are two or
three stories in height, organized on a grid street pattern, and by the arrangement of public open
spaces and landscaping elements.5 Guidelines are provided for building street orientation,
building height and scale, façade design, materials and architectural details, and public spaces,
plazas and courtyards. As discussed in “Pedestrian scale,” all of the project design changes are
aimed at stronger consistency with Community Design Guidelines applicable to development in
the downtown area. Staff highlights here the elements of consistency with each area of the
Downtown Design Guidelines.
3 CDG § 4.2(C.5c) – Wall surfaces.
4 CDG § 2.1(D) – Provide pleasing transitions and § 4.2(D.3) – Doorways.
5 Community Design Guidelines § 1.5 – The Community Design Context
Figure 5: Santa Rosa entry
ARC1 - 6
ARCH-0846-2015 (1135 Santa Rosa)
Page 7
Street orientation. Guidelines encourage the location of buildings at the back of the sidewalk.
This project involves the remodeling of an existing building within its current footprint. The
building is set back 5 to 8 feet from the Marsh Street sidewalk, and a bit less than 16 feet from
the Santa Rosa Street sidewalk. The space between the building and sidewalk will be landscaped
to enhance the pedestrian experience. The building is disconnected from adjacent buildings by
streets and driveways, and although the building is not located directly at the back of the
sidewalk, the existing setback does not have a negative effect on the street façade or pattern of
development.
Height, scale. The height and scale of new buildings must fit within the context and vertical scale
of existing development and provide human scale and proportion.6 The downtown area’s
cohesiveness is supported by structures two or three stories in height.7 The proposed building is
three stories in height and provides human scale and proportion through wall plane offsets and
material changes along building surfaces, reinforced by the landscaping, window patterns, and
architectural details previously discussed (Pedestrian scale).
Many of the techniques suggested for buildings over 50 feet tall have been employed to assure
that this building, though less than 40 feet tall, respects the context of its setting and provides an
appropriate visual transition to adjacent structures.8 The roof height is consistent, but is
articulated to provide visual transitions at building corners. The window pattern is regular and
restrained, but the taller pedestrian-oriented window forms on the lower level distinguish the first
floor from the upper floors. Street frontages exhibit changes in material, using wood, plaster, tile,
and metal. Setback variation, wall recesses, and projecting features are used to divide building
surfaces. Awnings and decorative features are used to enliven the pedestrian space and decrease
the vertical appearance of walls.
6 CDG § 4.2(B) – Height, scale.
7 CDG § 1.5 – The Community Design Context—San Luis Obispo Architecture
8 CDG § 4.2(B.4) – Height, scale—Tall buildings (50-70 ft. in height)
Figure 6: Corner of Santa Rosa and Marsh
ARC1 - 7
ARCH-0846-2015 (1135 Santa Rosa)
Page 8
The height of the proposed building is at least 10 feet below the
maximum building height permitted in the C-D Zone. Guidelines
also specify that the height of the building at the back of sidewalk
is not to exceed the width of the adjoining right-of-way.9 The
Santa Rosa Street right-of-way is 80 feet wide, and Marsh Street
70 feet wide, which would accommodate a building height of 70
feet. At less than 40 feet in height, the proposed building is well
within the limit described by this “right-of-way width guideline.”
Façade design. The changes to the types, placement, and pattern
of windows, and the addition of a bulkhead, awnings, decorative
lighting fixtures, and signage have created building façades that are complementary to existing
structures in the vicinity of the project. Wall surfaces and building entries are varied and
interesting for the pedestrian, consistent with guidelines for façade design.10
Materials and architectural details. Smooth troweled plaster in muted tan, brown, and wood-tone
colors complements the plaster, stucco, brick, cement block, and wood material used for
buildings in the vicinity. Tile used for the Marsh Street bulkhead enriches the simple character of
the building design. An attractive entry area, protected by an awning, recessed into the building,
provides pedestrians with an area to transition from the building to the Santa Rosa sidewalk.
Windows allow views into activities taking place on the ground floor of the building
Use traditional architecture
Design guidelines for downtown development do not
explicitly call for a particular architectural style; they
encourage various architectural features, materials, and
details that are traditional in nature, such as storefronts
with recessed entries, bulkheads, wood and masonry
surfaces, awnings, and decorative details, and stress the
need for development to fit within the context and historic
pattern of existing development.
The design of the remodeled building has a much more
traditional character than the existing building. Staff
believes that the overall style of the proposed building has
been given a more traditional feel by changes in window style and arrangement and the addition
of several more traditional architectural details. Windows that spanned multiple floors or formed
“horizontal ribbons” are now divided into panes, classically rectangular in form, and arranged in
a more regularly grouped and stacked manner. Awnings, a cut-tile bulkhead along Marsh, and
decorative lighting fixtures are additional details that have been added to give the building a
more traditional character. The plaster, wood, tile, and glass building surfaces are
9 CDG § 4.2(B.1a) – Height, scale—Relation to right-of-way width
10 CDG § 4.2(C) – Façade design
ARC1 - 8
ARCH-0846-2015 (1135 Santa Rosa)
Page 9
complementary to adjacent development, and are identified in design guidelines as appropriate
for buildings within the downtown.11
Lower the site wall at the parking area
As discussed above (Site walls and furniture), the site wall at the parking area has been lowered
to provide greater visibility to the building entry.
Justify the use of wood exterior or use an alternative material that requires less maintenance
The wood exterior materials have been retained. The applicant acknowledges that wood requires
maintenance to remain attractive, but that it is the preferred material because it is a “warm,
natural material that emphasizes the pedestrian areas of the building and transitions from the
two-story corner volume to the pedestrian entries.” Staff concurs with the applicant that cedar is
a durable and widely used exterior wall cladding, and that the building owner has a natural
incentive to ensure proper maintenance of the building surfaces.
Consider acoustic bounce due to overhangs
As discussed in the May 18th staff report for this project, the south and east sides of the building
lie within a 65 dB noise contour,12 so the outdoor deck and balcony spaces could be subject to
noise exposure in excess of the 60 dB maximum for residential and office outdoor areas.13 The
applicant notes that the soffits under the roof overhang are wood, which is expected to provide
some measure of acoustic absorption. The applicant has reduced the amount of roof overhang in
order to reduce the potential for acoustic bounce.
The City’s Noise Guidebook offers standard noise mitigation packages: sets of measures to
reduce exterior noise exposure in outdoor activity areas by up to 5 dB.14 Among the measures
described is the construction of a barrier that interrupts line-of-sight between the noise source
(traffic) and the receiver (a person on the deck or balcony). The line of site from street traffic to
the balconies and decks is interrupted by wall surfaces and balcony walls and floors, offering a
reduction in noise exposure over most of the outdoor use area. Higher noise levels would be
limited to the edges of these outdoor spaces, where one would have to lean against the side of the
balcony to have a direct line-of-site to the traffic below. Given the small area of exposure to a 65
dBnoise level, the minor amount of additional exposure, and the use of a non-reflective surface
in soffits under roof overhangs, staff finds that noise exposure levels for the outdoor areas
comply with the standards of the City’s Noise Element.
4.0CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
The applicant has responded to many of the ARC directional items, and has expressed that some
of the directional items may not be feasible because of existing building elements and the nature
of the site. Staff agrees with the applicant proposal and justification. However the ARC, in
asking that the project return for “Conceptual Review” before finalization the building design,
suggested that wholesale changes in the design were sought, which may not be fully reflected in
11 Community Design Guidelines § 4.2(D.1) – Materials and architectural details—Finish materials
12 General Plan, Noise Element, Figure 4 – 1990 Noise Contours
13 General Plan, Noise Element, Table 1 – Maximum Noise Exposure for Noise-Sensitive Uses Due to
Transportation Noise Sources.
14 Noise Guidebook, pg. 34: Noise Mitigation—Standard Noise Mitigation Packages
ARC1 - 9
ARCH-0846-2015 (1135 Santa Rosa)
Page 10
the modified design. Therefore, staff is providing a recommendation to continue the project to
allow for the incorporation of any additional design changes that may be necessary. But staff is
also providing an opportunity for the ARC to approve the project subject to certain conditions.
The following project changes should be provided whether the project is continued or whether
the ARC chooses to conditionally approve the project, and have been included in the draft
resolution:
Maintain a building entry at the south elevation whether or not the building entry is utilized for
the current or proposed building tenant. The entry shall be recessed and provide a covered entry
feature and opportunity for signage.
Provide additional building articulation at the south elevation to include awnings or balconies at
the second floor or other elements that enhance the pedestrian scale and give the appearance that
the third floor has a greater setback.
Provide a sample sign program and ensure the proposed building design can provide appropriate
signage above building entries.
Provide additional emphasis to primary building entry though material changes and other building
features.
Consider other elements that emphasize traditional design.
5.0ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project is “categorically exempt” under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
It consists of the minor alteration of an existing structure, with addition of less than 10,000
square feet of floor area, as described in CEQA Guidelines § 15301(e)(2). Public services and
facilities are available, and the project is not located within an environmentally sensitive area.
6.0OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
Plans for this project were distributed to several City departments for review. Comments
received from those departments have been addressed by incorporating them into appropriate
suggested conditions of approval for the project.
7.0ALTERNATIVES
6.1. Approve the project based on findings and subject to conditions as described in the
attached resolution.
6.2.Deny the project based on findings of inconsistency with the General Plan, Zoning
Regulations, or Community Design Guidelines.
8.0ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft Resolution
2. Vicinity map
3. Project plans (reduced size)
4. Project renderings
ARC1 - 10
RESOLUTION NO. ####-15
A RESOLUTION OF THE
SAN LUIS OBISPO ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL TO THE REMODELING OF A COMMERCIAL
BUILDING, AND AN ADDITION OF A THIRD FLOOR WITH TWO NEW
DWELLINGS, LOCATED AT 1135 SANTA ROSA STREET
(DOWNTOWN-COMMERCIAL (C-D) ZONE; FILE #ARCH-0846-2015)
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo
conducted a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room (Room 9), 990 Palm Street, San Luis
Obispo, California, on May 18, 2015, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under application
ARCH-0846-2015, 33 Tons, LLC, applicant and provided recommendations to the applicant
about modifications to the project design; and
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo
conducted a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room (Room 9), 990 Palm Street, San Luis
Obispo, California, on July 6, 2015, for the purpose of reviewing a modified project design for
the remodeling of a commercial building and addition of a third floor with two new dwellings;
and
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo has
duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and
evaluation and recommendations by staff; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Architectural Review Commission
of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. The Architectural Review Commission hereby grants final
approval to the proposed project ARCH-0846-2015, based on the following findings:
1. The project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of persons
living or working at the site or in the vicinity. It is consistent with the relevant policies and
standards of the General Plan and Zoning Regulations, and must conform to applicable building
and fire safety codes.
2.The project design is consistent with the City’s Community Design Guidelines
applicable to a commercial project. The design considers the site context, character, and
constraints, and is architecturally distinctive. Site functions are located for efficient operation and
site features relate properly to building architecture and site topography. The building design
exhibits proper balance and proportion, is visually interesting, and employs appropriate materials
and colors.
ATTACHMENT 1
ARC1 - 11
Resolution No. ARC ####-15 Page 2
ARCH-0846-2015(1135 Santa Rosa)
3. The project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). It consists of the minor alteration of an existing structure,
with addition of less than 10,000 square feet of floor area, as described in CEQA Guidelines
§15301(e)(2). Public services and facilities are available, and the project is not located within an
environmentally sensitive area.
SECTION 2. Action. The Architectural Review Commission hereby grants final
approval to the project ARCH-0846-2015, with incorporation of the following conditions:
Planning
1. Final project design and construction drawings submitted for a building permit shall be in
substantial compliance with the project plans approved by the ARC. A separate, full-size
sheet shall be included in working drawings submitted for a building permit that lists all
conditions and code requirements of project approval listed as sheet number 2. Reference
shall be made in the margin of listed items as to where in plans requirements are addressed.
Any change to approved design, colors, materials, landscaping, or other conditions of
approval must be approved by the Director or Architectural Review Commission, as deemed
appropriate.
2. Building entry – Marsh Street. The final project design will maintain a building entry at the
south elevation, whether or not the building entry is utilized for the current or proposed
building tenant. The entry shall be recessed and provide a covered entry feature and
opportunity for signage.
3. Building articulation – upper-level. The final project design will provide additional building
articulation at the south elevation to include awnings or balconies at the second floor or other
elements that enhance the pedestrian scale and give the appearance that the third floor has a
greater setback.
4. Sign program. A sample sign program will be provided. Ensure the proposed building design
can provide appropriate signage above building entries.
5. Emphasis at primary entry. The final project design will provide additional emphasis to
primary building entry though material changes and other building features.
6. Traditional design. The final project design will incorporate other elements that emphasize
traditional design.
7. Noise-Mitigating construction:Indoor noise exposure must not exceed 45 decibels for
residential spaces. The Standard Noise Mitigation Package for achieving a noise level
reduction of 20 dB for interior noise levels will be implemented, as described in the City’s
ARC1 - 12
Resolution No. ARC ####-15 Page 3
ARCH-0846-2015(1135 Santa Rosa)
Noise Guidebook. Plans submitted for construction permits must clearly indicate and
describe the noise mitigation measures, techniques, and materials implemented.
8. Night Sky Preservation.Plans submitted for construction permits will include sufficient
information to determine compliance with Night Sky Preservation regulations (Zoning
Regulations, Ch. 17.23). The location of all exterior lighting fixtures must be clearly
indicated and building-mounted fixtures must be depicted on building elevation drawings.
All exterior lighting must be oriented, recessed, or shielded to prevent light trespass and
pollution.
9. Accent lighting. The use of exterior lighting to accent building features is encouraged. Final
plans will include details about accent lighting used for this purpose. Accent lighting must be
comply with Night Sky Preservation regulations (Zoning Regulations, Ch. 17.23).
10. Bicycle parking. Final plans will clearly depict the location of short- and long-term bicycle
parking. Sufficient detail about the placement and design of bike racks and lockers to
demonstrate compliance with relevant Engineering Standards (#7930) and Community
Design Guidelines (§6.3(F))
11. Bicycle parking–Residential dwellings: Bicycle lockers or interior space within each
dwelling will be provided for the storage of at least two bicycles per residential unit (Zoning
Regulations §17.16.060(G)(2)).
12. Solid waste collection. Plans submitted for construction permits will include sufficient detail
about the design of solid waste and recycling collection areas to demonstrate conformance to
the City's Solid Waste Development Standards. Written verification from the San Luis
Garbage Company will be provided to demonstrate that the location and size of the proposed
solid waste and recycling collection facility is adequate for the collection service provided
for the project.
13. Utilities equipment—Screening. Final plans will include sufficient detail to demonstrate that
the transformer proposed to be installed along the Santa Rosa Street frontage is adequately
and appropriately screened from view, consistent with Community Design Guidelines
§6.1(D).
14. Landscape plan. Final plans submitted for construction permits will include a detailed
landscaping plan indicating the extent of landscaped area, hardscape, plant selection, and
method of irrigation, consistent with applicable Community Design Guidelines, Engineering
Standards, and Water-Efficient Landscape Standards. Plant selection will provide botanical
and visual diversity, and strengthen the link and transition between the sidewalk and
building, consistent with Community Design Guidelines § 6.2(A).
ARC1 - 13
Resolution No. ARC ####-15 Page 4
ARCH-0846-2015(1135 Santa Rosa)
15. Downspouts and drainpipes. Downspouts and drain pipes will be placed within building
walls. If they must be placed on a building exterior, they shall be integrated with the
architectural design, colors, and finish materials of the building, consistent with Community
Design Guidelines § 3.1(B.10d).
16. First-floor windows—Glass. Clear glass (at least 88 percent light transmission) will be used
for windows on the first floor, consistent with Community Design Guidelines § 4.2(D.4a).
Engineering Development Review
17. Projects involving the substantial remodel of existing structures requires that complete
frontage improvements be installed or that existing improvements be upgraded per city
standard. MC 12.16.050
18. Any section of damaged or displaced sidewalk, curb, or gutter shall be repaired and replaced
to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department.
19. This property is located in the Mission Style Sidewalk District of Downtown. Any new or
replacement driveway approach, curb ramp, curb, gutter, sidewalk, tree wells, or utility vaults
along street frontages shall be installed in the Mission Style per city standard #4220.
20. The Public Works Department would support a written request from the property owner to
defer the installation of Mission Styles sidewalk along Santa Rosa Street frontage for minor
improvements with the recordation of a covenant agreement. The covenant agreement shall
be recorded on a form provided by the city prior to building permit issuance. The city, upon
approval, will prepare the agreement for recordation. A nominal recording fee will be
required.
21. The existing alley driveway approach shall be upgraded by adding a 4’ accessible sidewalk
extension behind the existing ramp to comply with ADA and city standards for accessibility.
22. The building plan submittal shall show and label all survey monumentation. The monuments
shall be protected during construction.
23. Provisions for trash, recycle, and green waste containment, screening, and collection shall be
approved to the satisfaction of the City and San Luis Obispo Garbage Company. The
respective refuse storage area and on-site conveyance shall consider convenience, aesthetics,
safety, and functionality. Any common storage areas if proposed, shall be shown and noted
on the building plan submittal.
24. The building plans submittal shall show all required parking lot improvements, dimensions,
space dimensions, maneuverability, materials, space and aisle slopes, drainage, pavement
ARC1 - 14
Resolution No. ARC ####-15 Page 5
ARCH-0846-2015(1135 Santa Rosa)
marking, signage, and striping in accordance with the Parking and Driveway Standards and
disabled access requirements of the CBC.
25. The building plan submittal shall include a complete site utility plan. All existing and
proposed utilities along with utility company meters shall be shown. PG&E handout package
for proposed electrical service upgrades shall be included in the building plan submittal or
noted as a deferred submittal item. All work in the public right-of-way shall be shown or
noted.
26. New street tree plantings shall be planted in accordance with City Engineering Standards and
to the satisfaction of the City Arborist. The city arborist shall approve the tree species,
planting details, and planting locations. Street trees are generally required at a rate of one 15-
gallon street tree for each 35 linear feet of frontage. Three street trees in tree wells shall be
planted along both the Marsh and Santa Rosa Street frontages.
27. The City Arborist supports the proposed tree removals and proposed compensator tree
plantings. Any tree removal(s) located along or straddling the northwest property line shall
require specific approval from the City Arborist and the adjoining property owner.
28. Tree protection measures for any on-site or off-site trees to remain shall be implemented to
the satisfaction of the City Arborist. The City Arborist shall review and approve the
proposed tree protection measures prior to commencing with any demolition, grading, or
construction. The City Arborist shall approve any safety pruning, the cutting of substantial
roots, or grading within the dripline of trees. A city-approved arborist shall complete safety
pruning. Any required tree protection measures shall be shown or noted on the building plan
submittal.
Building & Safety
Code Requirements
29. Final plans submitted for construction permits will include a site plan that clearly shows and
identifies an accessible path of travel either from the street and or from the public way, on the
Site Plan.
30. An “exit plan” will be provided showing compliance with requirements for “common path of
egress travel” and “exit access travel distance” as required by Sections 1014.3 and 1016 CBC
respectively.
31. The two proposed stairs from the second floor will be are separated by a minimum of 1/3 of
the diagonal of the story served for a fully fire-sprinklered building.
ARC1 - 15
Resolution No. ARC ####-15 Page 6
ARCH-0846-2015(1135 Santa Rosa)
32. A code analysis will be provided for this mixed-use project, and will specify whether the
project is to be a “separated occupancies” or “non-separated occupancies” project per
California Building Code §508.Provide area ratios as applicable.
Transportation (Public Works)
33. Project shall satisfy City vehicle and parking requirements.
34. Adequate parking stops and curb stops will be provided for all parking spaces (including
spaces 8, 14, and 15).
Utilties
35. The property’s existing sewer lateral to the point of connection at the City main must pass a
video inspection, including repair or replacement, as part of the project. The CCTV
inspection shall be submitted during the Building Permit Review Process for review and
approval by the Utilities Department prior to issuance of a Building Permit.
Indemnification
36. The applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and/or its agents, officers
and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City and/or its agents,
officers or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul, the approval by the City of this
project, and all actions relating thereto, including but not limited to environmental review
(“Indemnified Claims”). The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any Indemnified
Claim upon being presented with the Indemnified Claim and City shall fully cooperate in the
defense against an Indemnified Claim."
On motion by Commissioner ___________, seconded by Commissioner _____________,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
REFRAIN:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 6th day of July, 2015.
_____________________________
Phil Dunsmore, Secretary
Architectural Review Commission
ARC1 - 16
O
O
C-D
C-R
O
O
C-R
C-D
C-D
O
PF
C-D
C-D-H
O
C-D
C-D-H
R-2-H
O
R-2-H
MAR
S
H
HIGU
E
R
A
O
S
O
S
S
A
N
T
A
R
O
S
A
PAC
I
F
I
C
MON
T
E
R
E
Y
VICINITY MAP File No. 0846-2015
1135 SANTA ROSA ST ¯
ATTACHMENT 2
ARC1 - 17
ATTACHMENT 3
ARC1 - 18
ARC1 - 19
ARC1 - 20
ARC1 - 21
ARC1 - 22
ARC1 - 23
ARC1 - 24
ARC1 - 25
ARC1 - 26
ARC1 - 27
Sa
n
t
a
R
o
s
a
+
M
a
r
s
h
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
,
A
R
C
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
11
3
5
S
a
n
t
a
R
o
s
a
,
S
a
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
15
.
0
6
2
2
pr
o
j
e
c
t
i
n
c
o
n
t
e
x
t
a
t
s
a
n
t
a
r
o
s
a
+
m
a
r
s
h
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC1 - 28
Sa
n
t
a
R
o
s
a
+
M
a
r
s
h
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
,
A
R
C
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
11
3
5
S
a
n
t
a
R
o
s
a
,
S
a
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
15
.
0
6
2
2
co
r
n
e
r
o
f
s
a
n
t
a
r
o
s
a
+
m
a
r
s
h
ARC1 - 29
Sa
n
t
a
R
o
s
a
+
M
a
r
s
h
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
,
A
R
C
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
11
3
5
S
a
n
t
a
R
o
s
a
,
S
a
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
15
.
0
6
2
2
so
u
t
h
c
o
r
n
e
r
ARC1 - 30
Sa
n
t
a
R
o
s
a
+
M
a
r
s
h
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
,
A
R
C
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
11
3
5
S
a
n
t
a
R
o
s
a
,
S
a
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
15
.
0
6
2
2
we
s
t
c
o
r
n
e
r
ARC1 - 31
Sa
n
t
a
R
o
s
a
+
M
a
r
s
h
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
,
A
R
C
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
11
3
5
S
a
n
t
a
R
o
s
a
,
S
a
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
15
.
0
6
2
2
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
v
i
e
w
o
n
m
a
r
s
h
ARC1 - 32
Sa
n
t
a
R
o
s
a
+
M
a
r
s
h
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
,
A
R
C
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
11
3
5
S
a
n
t
a
R
o
s
a
,
S
a
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
15
.
0
6
2
2
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
v
i
e
w
o
n
m
a
r
s
h
ARC1 - 33
Sa
n
t
a
R
o
s
a
+
M
a
r
s
h
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
,
A
R
C
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
11
3
5
S
a
n
t
a
R
o
s
a
,
S
a
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
15
.
0
6
2
2
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
v
i
e
w
o
n
m
a
r
s
h
ARC1 - 34
Sa
n
t
a
R
o
s
a
+
M
a
r
s
h
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
,
A
R
C
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
11
3
5
S
a
n
t
a
R
o
s
a
,
S
a
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
15
.
0
6
2
2
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
v
i
e
w
o
n
s
a
n
t
a
r
o
s
a
ARC1 - 35
Sa
n
t
a
R
o
s
a
+
M
a
r
s
h
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
,
A
R
C
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
11
3
5
S
a
n
t
a
R
o
s
a
,
S
a
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
15
.
0
6
2
2
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
v
i
e
w
o
n
s
a
n
t
a
r
o
s
a
ARC1 - 36
Sa
n
t
a
R
o
s
a
+
M
a
r
s
h
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
,
A
R
C
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
11
3
5
S
a
n
t
a
R
o
s
a
,
S
a
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
15
.
0
6
2
2
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
v
i
e
w
a
t
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
n
t
r
y
ARC1 - 37
Sa
n
t
a
R
o
s
a
+
M
a
r
s
h
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
,
A
R
C
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
11
3
5
S
a
n
t
a
R
o
s
a
,
S
a
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
15
.
0
6
2
2
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
v
i
e
w
o
n
s
a
n
t
a
r
o
s
a
ARC1 - 38
Sa
n
t
a
R
o
s
a
+
M
a
r
s
h
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
,
A
R
C
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
11
3
5
S
a
n
t
a
R
o
s
a
,
S
a
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
15
.
0
6
2
2
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
v
i
e
w
o
n
s
a
n
t
a
r
o
s
a
ARC1 - 39
Sa
n
t
a
R
o
s
a
+
M
a
r
s
h
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
,
A
R
C
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
11
3
5
S
a
n
t
a
R
o
s
a
,
S
a
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
15
.
0
6
2
2
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
v
i
e
w
a
t
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
e
n
t
r
y
ARC1 - 40
Sa
n
t
a
R
o
s
a
+
M
a
r
s
h
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
,
A
R
C
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
11
3
5
S
a
n
t
a
R
o
s
a
,
S
a
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
15
.
0
6
2
2
ea
s
t
e
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
-
s
a
n
t
a
r
o
s
a
s
t
r
e
e
t
ARC1 - 41
Sa
n
t
a
R
o
s
a
+
M
a
r
s
h
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
,
A
R
C
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
11
3
5
S
a
n
t
a
R
o
s
a
,
S
a
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
15
.
0
6
2
2
so
u
t
h
e
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
-
m
a
r
s
h
s
t
r
e
e
t
ARC1 - 42
Sa
n
t
a
R
o
s
a
+
M
a
r
s
h
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
,
A
R
C
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
11
3
5
S
a
n
t
a
R
o
s
a
,
S
a
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
15
.
0
6
2
2
we
s
t
e
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
-
f
a
c
i
n
g
e
m
p
t
y
l
o
t
ARC1 - 43
Sa
n
t
a
R
o
s
a
+
M
a
r
s
h
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
,
A
R
C
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
11
3
5
S
a
n
t
a
R
o
s
a
,
S
a
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
15
.
0
6
2
2
no
r
t
h
e
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
-
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
e
n
t
r
y
ARC1 - 44
Lo
m
a
n
d
r
a
l
o
n
g
i
f
o
l
i
a
‘
B
r
e
e
z
e
’
Qu
e
r
c
u
s
a
g
r
i
f
o
l
i
a
Ro
b
i
n
i
a
a
m
b
i
g
u
a
‘
P
u
r
p
l
e
R
o
b
e
’
Ba
m
b
u
s
a
m
u
l
t
i
p
l
e
x
‘
G
o
l
d
e
n
G
o
d
d
e
s
s
’
Dy
m
o
n
d
i
a
m
a
r
g
a
r
e
t
a
e
Ch
o
n
d
r
a
p
e
t
a
l
u
m
t
e
c
t
o
r
u
m
Sa
n
t
a
R
o
s
a
+
M
a
r
s
h
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
,
A
R
C
R
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
11
3
5
S
a
n
t
a
R
o
s
a
,
S
a
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
15
.
0
6
2
2
la
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
p
a
l
e
t
t
e
ARC1 - 45
DRAFT
SAN LUIS OBISPO
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MINUTES
June 15, 2015
ROLL CALL:
Present:CommissionersPatricia Andreen, Ken Curtis, Amy Nemcik, Allen Root,
Angela Soll,Vice-ChairSuzan Ehdaie, and Chairperson Greg Wynn
Absent:None
Staff:Senior Planner Phil Dunsmore, Assistant Planner Walter Oetzell,Assistant
City Attorney Jon Ansolabehere,and Recording Secretary Erica Inderlied
ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA:The agenda was accepted as presented.
MINUTES:The minutes of June 1, 2015,wereapproved as amended.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS:
There were no comments made from the public.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1.1234 Broad Street.ARCH-0856-2015; Continued review of façade remodel for
brewery, restaurant, and retail lease spaces, with a categorical exemption from
CEQA; C-D zone; 1234 Broad Street, LLC, applicant.
Walter Oetzell, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report, recommendingthat the
Commission adopt a resolution granting final approval tothe project, based on findings
andsubject to conditions, whichheoutlined.
Dustin Pires and TrevorMiller, applicant representatives, summarized changes made to
the project following previous Commission direction; noted a preference for a rectilinear
façade design rather than one expressing the building’s barrel roof shape.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
HileriShand, neighboring resident, notedconcernsabout noise impactsrelating to
proposeduses, includingroll-updoorsproposed alongPacific Street, and about street
congestion resulting from delivery trucks.
Bryan Ridley, SLO, spoke in support of the project and the applicant’s proposed design;
noted that Community Design Guidelines discourage curved roof forms.
Draft ARC Minutes
June 15, 2015
Page 2
Amy Kardel, adjacentproperty owner, spoke in support of the project with proposed
rectilinear façade; commented that taller corner elements will screen roof equipment
and not exceed the height of nearby buildings.
James Lopes, SLO, spoke in support of a curved roof shape on the Broad Street
elevation;commented that the applicant’s wholly rectilinear proposal appears faddish
and mimics some corporate chain designs.
Diane Duenow,SLO, spoke in support of staff’s recommendation for a façade
expressing the curved roofline; spoke in opposition to the inclusion of horizontal wood
siding.
Russ Brown, Chair of Save our Downtown,spoke in support staff’s recommendation.
Rodessa Newtown, applicant representative, SLO, spokein support of the project with a
rectangular Broad Street roofline.
There were no further commentsfrom the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
In response to inquiry from Commr.Andreen, Senior Planner Dunsmore clarified that
eightfeet is staff’s preferencefor sidewalk clearance around uses such as sidewalk
dining, but that six-foot clearance may be acceptable as a minimum for “pinch points.”
Commr. Andreen spoke in support of a curved roofline for the Broad Street façade;
noted desire to see the height and visual impact of the corner tower element reduced as
much as possible without exposing rooftop equipment.
Commr. Curtis spoke in support of altering the material and color of the corner tower
element, rather than its height, to make it less visually dominant, and in support of a
curved-roof Broad Street façade;spoke in opposition to the use of horizontal wood
sidingand metal for the bulkhead.
Commr. Root spoke in support of a curved roofline for the Broad Street façade if the
“truth” window were to beeliminated; commented that the height and material of the
corner tower element is not necessarily a problem so long as the color is lightened and
a “backstage” effect from other vantage points is avoided; suggested that the top of the
corner be further articulated with a cornice or similar element.
Commr. Nemcik spoke in support of the applicant’s proposal for a rectilinear Broad
Street façade, and a bulkhead surrounding the building.
Vice-Chair Ehdaieconcurred; requested confirmation from staff that nominal use of
metal siding elements is not in conflict with Community Design Guidelines.
Draft ARC Minutes
June 15, 2015
Page 3
Chair Wynn spoke in support of an arched roofline along Broad Street, extending
bulkheads around the building, utilizing lighter-colored, high-quality horizontal metal
siding for the corner lower element, and lowering the height of and increasing
articulation of the corner tower element.
Commr. Soll spoke in support of a Broad Street façade expressing the building’s barrel
roof shape and lowering the corner tower element; spoke in opposition to the use of
metal siding downtown.
Therewere no further comments from the Commission.
On motion by Vice-Chair Ehdaie, seconded by Commr.Nemcik, to adopt a resolution
granting final approval to the project, based on findings and subject to conditions
contained in the staff report, with the following revisions:
A.High-quality, light-colored horizontal metal siding shall be utilized for the corner
tower element.
B.The bulkhead shall extend around all sides ofthe building.
C.Applicant shall work with staff to lower the height of the corner tower element as
much as feasible without exposing rooftop equipment.
D.The corner tower element shall include articulation in the form of a cornice or
similar element at the top.
AYES:Commrs.EhdaieandNemcik
NOES:Commrs. Andreen, Curtis, Root, Soll,andWynn
RECUSED:None
ABSENT:None
The motion failed on a 2:5vote.
Eric Newton, applicant representative, clarified that if theBroad Street façade is curved
to express the building’s barrel roof, it will mean the loss of some windows and the re-
articulation of the corner tower element.
On motion by Commr. Andreen, seconded by Commr. Soll, to adopt a resolution
granting final approval to the project, based on findings and subject to conditions
contained in the staff report, with the following revisions:
A.High-quality, light-colored horizontal metal siding shall be utilized for the corner
tower element.
B.The bulkhead shall extend around all sides of the building.
C.Applicant shall work with staff to lower the height of the corner tower element as
much as feasible without exposing rooftop equipment.
D.The corner tower element shall include articulation in the form of a cornice or
similar element at the top.
E.The Broad Street façade shall express the shape of the building’s barrel roof.
Draft ARC Minutes
June 15, 2015
Page 4
AYES:Commrs. Andreen, Curtis, Root, Soll, and Wynn
NOES:Commrs. EhdaieandNemcik
RECUSED:None
ABSENT:None
The motion passedon a 5:2vote.
The Commission recessed at 6:33 p.m. and reconvened at 6:38 p.m. with all members
present.
2.1921 Santa Barbara Avenue.ARCH-0521-2014; Review of four live/work units
and a small commercial suite in the Railroad Historic District. A Mitigated
Negative Declaration is proposed to be adopted for this project; C-S-H zone;
Garcia Family Trust, applicant.
Phil Dunsmore, Senior Planner, presented the staff report, recommendingthat the
Commission continue the item with direction to the applicant on project modifications for
consistency with the Railroad District Plan and Community Design Guidelines.
Dunsmore summarized previous hearings of the project before the Cultural Heritage
Committee and resulting changes to the project.
Assistant City Attorney Ansolabehere clarified for the record that Cultural Heritage
Committee Member Wood was found to have had a conflict of interest relating to the
project property, but was not recused from the Committee’s deliberation on the project
as would have been appropriate.
George Garcia, applicant, summarized revisions to the project; noted desire to preserve
the historical use of the property as live-work.
Jaime Hill, Cultural Heritage Committee Chair, summarized the Committee’s
deliberations on the project; clarified that while the Committee found the project to be
consistent with the Railroad District Plan, additional concerns remained about massing,
scale,and the interfacing of residential and non-residential uses.
Assistant Planner Oetzell distributed copies of Resolution CHC-1004-15, adopted at the
Committee’s January 26, 2015,meeting.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
James Papp, Cultural Heritage Committee Member, SLO, commented that staff’s
proposed project mitigation measures did not adequately address impacts to the
bungalowscale of the neighborhoodor inconsistencies with the Railroad District Plan.
Ty Vinke, neighboring resident, noted concern about project massing,size, and
apparent inconsistency withCommunity Design Guideline goals for design quality and
preservation of neighborhood character.
Draft ARC Minutes
June 15, 2015
Page 5
Debbie Collins, neighboring property owner, spoke to the importance of the character of
theneighborhood; commented that a two-story project would be more appropriate for
the location.
Daniel Shaw, nearby property owner, noted concern aboutproject massing and
footprint; noted General Plan policies prescribing the protection of residential uses when
commercial uses are proposed in the vicinity.
Alex Elliott, nearby property owner, read into the record comment from Cameron and
Julie Watts, neighboring property owners, noting concern about impacts to privacy.
Elliott notedconcerns about the effects of setting detrimental precedent.
Jason Browning, SLO, noted concern about the project’s apparent inconsistency with
GeneralPlan and Railroad District Plan; commented that mass and scaling have been a
public concern since the project’s inception but have not been addressed.
Josie Grady, SLO, noted concern about project size and the reinstatement of upper-
story decks; commented that parking reduction will contribute to existing parking
problems within the Railroad District.
Don Ray, nearby resident,noted concern about projectheight, size,and massing;
commented that conceptual elevations do not adequately convey the real-life impact of
the proposed structure.
Linda White, SLO, noted General Plan Policy 2.3.3, which states that protection of
residential atmosphere shall be made a priority; commented that project size, mass,and
scale are not compatible with surroundings.
Sandra Rowley, Chair of Residents for Quality Neighborhoods, commented that
maximums and minimums should not be treated as standards, in that the minimum is
sometimes insufficient, and vice versa; noted concern about noise impacts from roof
decks.
Cory O’Keefe, SLO, spoke in support of the project; commented that it reflects elements
of the Railroad Square and represents a type of housing that is in demand.
Matt Sansone,SLO, spoke in support of the project; commentedthat change is
inevitableand acceptable given good design; opined that the project is consistent with
elements of the Railroad Square.
John Grady, SLO, distributed exhibits and comment into the record; noted objection to
the reinstatement of proposed decks without Cultural Heritage Committee approval;
spoke in opposition to the project based on scale and lack of cohesiveness with the
Railroad District Plan.
There were no further comments from the public.
Draft ARC Minutes
June 15, 2015
Page 6
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
In response to inquiry from Commr. Andreen, Senior Planner Dunsmore clarified that
the views protected in the Railroad District Plan are views of historic district features,
and views from the railroad right-of-way.
Commr.Andreen noted concern about the potential for overlook issues to impact
neighboring residential uses; spoke in support of the “flipped” building footprint; spoke in
support of members of the Cultural Heritage Committee attending the hearing and
speaking to their own recommendations.
Commr. Curtis noted concern that the design has incorporated most of its design
elements from newer railroad-themed elements of the Railroad District, rather than the
actual prevailing historic character of the District. Curtis noted concerns about height,
mass, overall incompatibility of design and the impact of parkingreductions;requested
that future staff reports referring to provisions of the Railroad District Plan include
excerpts from the plan.
Commr. Root commented on the conflicting interests of the project and the neighbors;
noted sensitivity to protecting residential uses, as well as the importance of infill
development and satisfying housing demand.
Commr. Nemcik commented that the size of the proposed project isin conflict with the
Commission’s key objective of ensuring the quality of life for residents.
Commr. Soll spoke in support of contemporary design and meeting demands for this
type of housing; noted the importance of protecting the scale and character ofhistoric
neighborhoods.
Vice-Chair Ehdaie noted concern about incompatibility with the historical features of the
surrounding neighborhood; spoke in support of the project aesthetic in general but not
for the proposed location.
On motion by Commr. Andreen, seconded by Commr. Root,to continue the meeting
past 9:00 p.m.
AYES:Commrs. Andreen, Curtis, Ehdaie, Nemcik, Root, Soll,andWynn
NOES:None
RECUSED:None
ABSENT:None
The motion passedon a 7:0vote.
Chair Wynn noted the difference between the historical identities of the east and west
sides of Santa Barbara; spoke in support of the project aesthetic overall; noted support
for parking reductions and the inclusion of roof decks as proposed; commented onthe
Draft ARC Minutes
June 15, 2015
Page 7
limited scope of the Cultural Heritage Committee’s tools for addressing many urban
issues.
There were no furthercomments from the Commission.
On a motion by Chair Wynn, seconded by Vice-Chair Ehdaie, to continue the item with
the following direction to the applicant on project modifications for consistency with the
Railroad District plan and Community Design Guidelines:
1. Provide twobicycle parking spaces for Unit B, in conformance with Table 5 of §
17.16.060(C) of the Zoning Regulations, and fiveadditional bicycle parking
spaces to further reduce the demand for vehicle parking.
2.Further articulate the wall planes of the building’s south elevation, closer to Santa
Barbara Street.
3.Emphasize the entries to the live/work units using wall recesses, roof overhangs,
canopies, arches, columns, signs, and similar architectural features to call
attention to their importance.
4.Revised design shall minimize overlook into residential properties and document
how it is accomplished.
5.Consider methodsof orienting and screening upper decks and balcony space to
minimize impacts to the privacy of adjacent residences and their outdoor living
areas and evaluate City policies for compliance.
6.Verify use of enhanced paving to connect parking areas to building entries, and
clearly delineate walkways by changes in the color or texture of paving materials.
7.Verify compliance with City’s parking and driveway standards.
8.Redesign the solid waste collection area enclosure so that it allows for adequate
maneuvering space through the parking area, is completely screened, and so
that containers are arranged in a conveniently-accessible manner, in compliance
with the City’s Development Standards for Solid Waste Services.
9.Provide solid waste bins in conformance with the requirements of the City’s
Development Standards for Solid Waste Services. If exceptions are necessary
to accommodate special circumstances, complete a Conditional Exception
Application for review by the Community Development, Public Works, and
Utilities Departments.
10.Adjust the scale, mass and height of the building for increased neighborhood
compatibility consistent with Historic Preservation Program Guidelines 3.2.1 and
Community Design Guidelines Section 5.3.a.
11.Consider the appropriateness of the design for compliance with the Railroad
District Plan in reference to the West side of Santa Barbara Street.
AYES:Commrs. Andreen, Curtis, Ehdaie, Nemcik, Root, Soll, and Wynn
NOES:None
RECUSED:None
ABSENT:None
The motion passedon a 7:0vote.
Draft ARC Minutes
June 15, 2015
Page 8
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION:
3.Staff:
a.Agenda Forecast
Senior Planner Dunsmore noted that the July 6, 2015,meeting may be
cancelled.
4.Commission:
ADJOURNMENT:The meeting adjourned at 9:17p.m.
Respectfully submitted by,
Erica Inderlied
Recording Secretary